12/03/09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Tim Gladhill Exhibit ~ From: Sent: To: Subject: Mark Hilliard [mdhilliard@umn.edu] Friday, November 13, 2009 1 :32 PM Tim Gladhill RE: Owner Response to Alternative Location for Accessory Structure Tim, Ilook.ed over the proposed alternative location suggested your staff. This location is unacceptable for storage shed location for a long set of reasons which wOllld NOT have been obvious to your staff who are looking at vertical aerial photography photos taken in the fall with any leave cover to suggest the size and, location of the trees on the lot. I do NOT think the proposed alternative site is usable for a long list of reasons: 1. Building at the proposed location would mean sacrificing 3 Red Oak Trees approximately 60::-70+ years old apiece and a native plum tree. The Oak trees are over 60 feet tall each and cutting down these existing trees would ruin the essential character of the neighborhood and certainly of my lot. 2. Two of the trees you would require me to cut down lean over the house and it would be dangerous option to carry out (not to mention labor and cost) . 3. You also forgot to remember the path of existing .utilities to the house. Your proposed alternative would require me to put concrete foundations over the sole electrical feed to my entire. You specifically mentioned before that placing structures over existing utilities in NOT a desirable option. The existing power line you would have me build over is very shallow and relocating It to avoid damaging it is - again -Iaborand cost prohibitive; 4. The existing ~Iope you. describe as "2ft" is much more like 3 - 4 feet over the length of the 22 feet shed I want to build, and would require a very large amount of fill to be brought into the site. The amount of fill required could have a major effect on the quantity of run-off drainage to my neighbor's lot which would not be appreciated I am ~ure! Fin?lIy, we were speCifically warned NEVER to bring in soil to raise/level soil levels over ANY of the Red Oak trees, when we first bought the lot over 15 years ago by landscapers and horticulturists, as this almost always results in quick death of such trees as they do best when their root systems are close to the surface. As you would see on the ground at my lot, not only would you need to CUT DOWN major trees with your alternative location, you would also have to FILL over the root systems of at least 2-3 other major trees. . 5. Finally, if you were to go stand on the lot of my neighbor, t<? the EAST, Jeff Durant, you would also see that the proposed alternative location would place the shed squarely in the views of his back patio, house windows and pool area. While I KNOW this isn't part of your legal concerns, it seems absolutely illogical to build in such. a "alternative" location when a much more practical, safe, hidden, and less disruptive to natural drainage, location exists. . Again, if you want to visit the site again, I would like to be there. If you need pictures from the ground I have already sent you at least 5, but could send you more if you need them. I hope I have made a clear argument for NOT using the proposed alternative building location. With all due respect, I have been all over the lot for months looking for a location that is the LEAST visible to neighbors, the LEAST disruptive and damaging to pre-existing trees that are part of the neighborhoods "essential character" and woulde require the least disruption of the lot. That is the reason J picked the originai building location and the exact reason I have paid the $600 to begin the varial!ce process.. ~ From: Tim Gladhill [mailto:tgladhill@ci.ramsey.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:35 PM 1 27